Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 897 - AT - Income TaxService of notice u/s 148 by affixture - Held that:- The notice server of the department had affixed the notice u/s 148 of the Act on the address given in the return of income i.e. Jyoti Nagpal, Tagore Garden, New Delhi with the remarks that “Makan Khali Para Hai, ab yahan nahi rahti notice chipka diya gaya”. We also find from the Page No.13 of the Paper Book filed by the department that the notice u/s 142 sent by speed post on 1.12.2008 received by the appellant on 06.12.2008. We fail to understand when the house was vacant in the month of January, 2008 how same person was residing at the same address in the month of December, 2008. This goes to prove that the appellant is determined to decline to accept the notice. We are further strengthened in taking the view by the fact that the appellant never brought on record as to how he had come to know of the passing of the assessment order against which he had pursued the legal remedies available under the Act within the stipulated time. In other words there was due service of notice u/s 148 upon the appellant by refusal. As relying on Jagdish Singh Vs. Natthu Singh reported in [1991 (11) TMI 246 - SUPREME COURT] held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement ‘refused’ or ‘not available in the house’ or ‘house locked’ or ‘shop closed’ or addressee not in station’, due service has to be presumed. Similarly, when the notice server affixed notice on the last known address with the remark that not available in the house, on the same analogy, it has to be presumed that notice was served properly. The case laws cited by the Ld. AR are of not any help in the facts of the case. - Decided against assessee. Addition u/s 69 - rejection of accpting additional evidence by CIT(A) - Held that:- It was only during the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A) the appellant made attempt to file the confirmation letter from Mr. Satish Kumar as additional evidence without even filing an application for admission of such additional evidence as required under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in not taking cognizance of such additional evidence. No explanation on the record explaining the sources for the cash deposited in the Bank account of the assessee on 17.04.2012. The appellant miserably failed to discharge the onus that was lying upon him under the provisions of the Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, we hereby confirm the addition of ₹ 3,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee.
|